Tag Archives: wikileaks

The more one researches mind control, the more one will come to the conclusion that there is a coordinated script that has been in place for a very long time with the goal to turn the human race into non-thinking automatons. For as long as man has pursued power over the masses, mind control has been orchestrated by those who study human behavior in order to bend large populations to the will of a small “elite” group. Today, we have entered a perilous phase where mind control has taken on a physical, scientific dimension that threatens to become a permanent state if we do not become aware of the tools at the disposal of the technocratic dictatorship unfolding on a worldwide scale.

Modern mind control is both technological and psychological. Tests show that simply by exposing the methods of mind control, the effects can be reduced or eliminated, at least for mind control advertising and propaganda. More difficult to counter are the physical intrusions, which the military-industrial complex continues to develop and improve upon.

1. Education — This is the most obvious, yet still remains the most insidious. It has always been a would-be dictator’s ultimate fantasy to “educate” naturally impressionable children, thus it has been a central component to Communist and Fascist tyrannies throughout history. No one has been more instrumental in exposing the agenda of modern education than Charlotte Iserbyt — one can begin research into this area by downloading a free PDF of her book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, which lays bare the role of Globalist foundations in shaping a future intended to produce servile drones lorded over by a fully educated, aware elite class.

2. Advertising and Propaganda – Edward Bernays has been cited as the inventor of the consumerist culture that was designed primarily to target people’s self-image (or lack thereof) in order to turn a want into a need. This was initially envisioned for products such as cigarettes, for example. However, Bernays also noted in his 1928 book, Propaganda, that “propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government.” This can be seen most clearly in the modern police state and the growing citizen snitch culture, wrapped up in the pseudo-patriotic War on Terror. The increasing consolidation of media has enabled the entire corporate structure to merge with government, which now utilizes the concept of propaganda placement. Media; print, movies, television, and cable news can now work seamlessly to integrate an overall message which seems to have the ring of truth because it comes from so many sources, simultaneously. When one becomes attuned to identifying the main “message,” one will see this imprinting everywhere. And this is not even to mention subliminal messaging.

3. Predictive Programming – Many still deny that predictive programming is real. I would invite anyone to examine the range of documentation put together by Alan Watt and come to any other conclusion. Predictive programming has its origins in predominately elitist Hollywood, where the big screen can offer a big vision of where society is headed. Just look back at the books and movies which you thought were far-fetched, or “science fiction” and take a close look around at society today. For a detailed breakdown of specific examples, Vigilant Citizen is a great resource that will probably make you look at “entertainment” in a completely different light.

4. Sports, Politics, Religion – Some might take offense at seeing religion, or even politics, put alongside sports as a method of mind control. The central theme is the same throughout: divide and conquer. The techniques are quite simple: short circuit the natural tendency of people to cooperate for their survival, and teach them to form teams bent on domination and winning. Sports has always had a role as a key distraction that corrals tribal tendencies into a non-important event, which in modern America has reached ridiculous proportions where protests will break out over a sport celebrity leaving their city, but essential human issues such as liberty are giggled away as inconsequential. Political discourse is strictly in a left-right paradigm of easily controlled opposition, while religion is the backdrop of nearly every war throughout history.

5. Food, Water, and Air – Additives, toxins, and other food poisons literally alter brain chemistry to create docility and apathy. Fluoride in drinking water has been proven to lower IQ; Aspartame and MSG are excitotoxins which excite brain cells until they die; and easy access to the fast food that contains these poisons generally has created a population that lacks focus and motivation for any type of active lifestyle. Most of the modern world is perfectly groomed for passive receptiveness — and acceptance — of the dictatorial elite. And if you choose to diligently watch your diet, they are fully prepared to spray the population from the above.

6. Drugs — This can be any addictive substance, but the mission of mind controllers is to be sure you are addicted to something. One major arm of the modern mind control agenda is psychiatry, which aims to define all people by their disorders, as opposed to their human potential. This was foreshadowed in books such as Brave New World. Today, it has been taken to even further extremes as a medical tyranny has taken hold where nearly everyone has some sort of disorder — particularly those who question authority. The use of nerve drugs in the military has led to record numbers of suicides. Worst of all, the modern drug state now has over 25% of U.S. children on mind-numbing medication.

7. Military testing — The military has a long history as the testing ground for mind control. The military mind is perhaps the most malleable, as those who pursue life in the military generally resonate to the structures of hierarchy, control, and the need for unchallenged obedience to a mission. For the increasing number of military personal questioning their indoctrination, a recent story highlighted DARPA’s plans for transcranial mind control helmets that will keep them focused.

8. Electromagnetic spectrum — An electromagnetic soup envelops us all, charged by modern devices of convenience which have been shown to have a direct impact on brain function. In a tacit admission of what is possible, one researcher has been working with a “god helmet” to induce visions by altering the electromagnetic field of the brain. Our modern soup has us passively bathed by potentially mind-altering waves, while a wide range of possibilities such as cell phone towers is now available to the would-be mind controller for more direct intervention.

9. Television, Computer, and “flicker rate”– It’s bad enough that what is “programmed” on your TV (accessed via remote “control”) is engineered; it is all made easier by literally lulling you to sleep, making it a psycho-social weapon. Flicker rate tests show that alpha brain waves are altered, producing a type of hypnosis — which doesn’t portend well for the latest revelation that lights can transmit coded Internet data by “flickering faster than the eye can see.” The computer’s flicker rate is less, but through video games, social networks, and a basic structure which overloads the brain with information, the rapid pace of modern communication induces an ADHD state. A study of video games revealed that extended play can result in lower blood flow to the brain, sapping emotional control. Furthermore, role-playing games of lifelike war and police state scenarios serve to desensitize a connection to reality. One look at the WikiLeaks video Collateral Murder should be familiar to anyone who has seen a game like Call of Duty.

10.Nanobots – From science fiction horror, directly to the modern brain; the nanobots are on the way. Direct brain modification already has been packaged as “neuroengineering.” A Wired article from early 2009 highlighted that direct brain manipulation via fiber optics is a bit messy, but once installed “it could make someone happy with the press of a button.” Nanobots take the process to an automated level, rewiring the brain molecule by molecule. Worse, these mini droids can self-replicate, forcing one to wonder how this genie would ever get back in the bottle once unleashed. Expected date of arrival? Early 2020s.

A concerted effort is underway to manage and predict human behavior so that the social scientists and the dictatorial elite can control the masses and protect themselves from the fallout of a fully awake free humanity. Only by waking up to their attempts to put us to sleep do we stand a chance of preserving our free will.

The U.S. Air Force is blocking its personnel from using work computers to view the websites of the New York Times and other major publications that have posted classified diplomatic cables, people familiar with the matter said.

Air Force users who try to view the websites of the New York Times, Britain’s Guardian, Spain’s El Pais, France’s Le Monde or German magazine Der Spiegel instead get a page that says, “ACCESS DENIED. Internet Usage is Logged & Monitored,” according to a screen shot reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The notice warns that anyone who accesses unauthorized sites from military computers could be punished.

The Air Force said it had blocked more than 25 websites that contained the documents, originally obtained by the website WikiLeaks and published starting late last month, in order to keep classified material off unclassified computer systems.

Major Toni Tones, a spokeswoman for Air Force Space Command, wouldn’t name the websites but said they might include media sites. Removing such material after it ends up on a computer could require “unnecessary time and resources,” Major Tones said.

“It is unfortunate that the U.S. Air Force has chosen not to allow its personnel access to the most important news, analysis and commentary,” a New York Times spokeswoman said.

The other publications couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.

The move was ordered by the 24th Air Force, which is responsible for maintaining Air Force computer networks. The Army, Navy and Marines aren’t blocking the sites, and the Defense Department hasn’t told the services to do so, according to spokespeople for the services and the Pentagon.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense has issued guidance against visiting WikiLeaks or downloading documents posted there, according to defense officials. The Air Force told its own personnel in August to avoid those actions. Service commanders have authority to go beyond Pentagon guidance and issue orders to protect classified information.

One senior defense official questioned the wisdom of blocking the newspaper sites or even prohibiting service members from visiting them on military computers, arguing that the information has spread on the Internet and that sites like the New York Times contain other, useful information. The defense official said blocking the New York Times was a misinterpretation of military guidance to avoid visiting websites that post classified material.

The new order doesn’t prevent Air Force personnel from viewing the media websites on nonmilitary computers, one Air Force official said. The block can also be lifted if accessing one of the news sites is essential to a person’s job, according to the screen shot.

LONDON – Julian Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks Web site whose release of sensitive U.S. documents on the Internet has generated outrage and embarrassment in official circles, was denied bail Tuesday after he was arrested by British police on a Swedish warrant for alleged sex crimes.

During an afternoon court appearance, British Judge Howard Riddle told Assange there were “substantial grounds” to believe that he would not show up for further proceedings. The judge ordered Assange held pending an extradition hearing.

When Assange was asked whether he understood that he could consent to extradition to Sweden, he told Riddle, “I understand that, and I do not consent.”

Assange, accompanied by his lawyer, arrived at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court in central London on Tuesday afternoon after turning himself in to Scotland Yard at 9:30 a.m. local time. A scrum of reporters, mixed with supporters holding placards, jammed the street outside. Assange’s lawyers requested that he be freed on bail pending the result of the extradition proceedings, which could potentially take weeks.

Assange has said he intends to fight extradition to Sweden, where he is being sought for questioning related to allegations of sexual assault against two women. Assange and his supporters have denied the accusations, calling them part of an elaborate plot to silence WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks officials, in a Twitter message, said the arrest would not hinder further dissemination of sensitive documents.

Since publication of the latest round of documents began last week, pressure has mounted on Assange, who was being sought internationally on an Interpol warrant, and on WikiLeaks itself, which is in a global battle to keep its financial and distribution system intact.

Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, had been in hiding for weeks. In a video statement to the BBC, Assange’s attorney, Mark Stephens, said Scotland Yard notified him late Monday that a valid Swedish arrest warrant had been delivered to British authorities and that Stockholm was seeking his extradition. Under European law, extradition between two European Union members – such as Britain and Sweden – is a faster, less legally complicated process, making any bid to overturn the extradition request difficult.

Stephens told the BBC, “It’s about time we got to the end of the day and we got some truth, justice and rule of law. Julian Assange has been the one in hot pursuit to vindicate himself to clear his good name.”

His arrest comes as U.S. officials continue to investigate whether Assange can be charged in the United States for crimes related to the WikiLeaks release of sensitive documents. U.S. officials expressed outrage Monday after WikiLeaks released a State Department cable that listed sites worldwide whose “loss” could “critically impact” the health, communications, economy or security of the United States. In addition to listing dams, bridges and mines, the cable identified specific factories that are key producers of vaccines and weapons parts.

The release of the list “is really irresponsible. It is tantamount to giving a group like al-Qaeda a targeting list,” said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.

In a warning to Swedish and U.S. authorities, however, Stephens said this weekend that his client was prepared to retaliate if charged. He said Assange might release the secret code – with a 256-bit encryption key – of a massive file quietly distributed this summer that contains thousands of unredacted documents.

The allegations against Assange in Sweden stem from a trip he took there in August, during which he had brief relationships with two women, engaging in what he has since described as consensual sex.

Both women, according to Swedish authorities, have conceded that sex with Assange started as consensual but allege that it later became nonconsensual. If convicted on the most serious charges against him, Assange faces up to four years in prison.

Staff writer Mary Beth Sheridan in Washington and special correspondent Rebecca Omonira-Oyekanmi in London contributed to this report.View Source Article

Senator Joseph Lieberman and other lawmakers on Thursday introduced legislation that would make it a federal crime for anyone to publish the name of a U.S. intelligence source, in a direct swipe at the secret-spilling website WikiLeaks.

“The recent dissemination by Wikileaks of thousands of State Department cables and other documents is just the latest example of how our national security interests, the interests of our allies, and the safety of government employees and countless other individuals are jeopardized by the illegal release of classified and sensitive information,” said Lieberman in a written statement.

“This legislation will help hold people criminally accountable who endanger these sources of information that are vital to protecting our national security interests,” he continued.

The so-called SHIELD Act (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination) would amend a section of the Espionage Act that already forbids publishing classified information on U.S. cryptographic secrets or overseas communications intelligence — i.e., wiretapping. The bill would extend that prohibition to information on HUMINT, human intelligence, making it a crime to publish information “concerning the identity of a classified source or informant of an element of the intelligence community of the United States,” or “concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government” if such publication is prejudicial to U.S. interests.

Leaking such information in the first place is already a crime, so the measure is aimed squarely at publishers.

Lieberman (ID-CT) has been going after WikiLeaks with a fury he once reserved for video-game zombies, pressuring first Amazon, and then data-visualization company Tableau, to blacklist the organization in the wake of this week’s State Department leak.

Lieberman’s proposed solution to WikiLeaks could have implications for journalists reporting on some of the more unsavory practices of the intelligence community. For example, former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega was once a paid CIA asset. Would reporting that now be a crime?

One thing the bill won’t do is put WikiLeaks, or founder Julian Assange, in any new legal jeopardy over the “Cablegate” database, the Afghan war logs, or the organization’s other recent high-profile leaks. That’s because the Constitution imposes a total ban on ex post facto criminal laws.

WikiLeaks first started getting heat over U.S. intelligence sources when it published a detailed and mostly classified log of 77,000 events in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan last July. Though it took some steps to keep informant’s names from the release, some of the published records nonetheless contained the names of Afghan informants, whom the Pentagon and various NGOs have said face potentially deadly reprisal from the Taliban. Months later, though, there have been no confirmed reports of anyone coming to harm from that leak.

WikiLeaks was more cautious with the 400,000 entry Iraq war logs it published in October, using an automated script to redact names from the data dump. And with the quarter-million State Department cables, WikiLeaks is trickling out the documents about 80 at a time, and apparently manually purging the names of U.S. sources as it goes.

U.S. officials at the Pentagon and State Department denied Friday knowing of any efforts to take down the WikiLeaks website or asking companies to do so.

The site’s efforts to publish 250,000 diplomatic cables has been hampered by denial-of-service attacks, ejection from its server host and cancellation of its name by its American domain name provider. Each time WikiLeaks has worked out other arrangements to bring the site back online.

In written answers to readers’ questions posted on the website of the British newspaper The Guardian, WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange alleged “abusive elements of the United States government” were behind the site’s technical problems.

A State Department spokesman disputed that the U.S. government was involved.

“I am not aware of any conversations by the United States government with either any internet host here or any government over there at this point,” said spokesman P.J. Crowley.

A Defense Department official also denied causing the technical problems slowing the WikiLeaks release of secret U.S. government documents.

“I am not aware that the Department of Defense is behind any of the problems that WikiLeaks is experiencing,” Col. Dave Lapan, Pentagon spokesman, said Friday. “We are not aware of what is causing the problems that WikiLeaks is experiencing.”

Lapan said the military’s Cyber Command has both defensive and offensive capabilities but is limited where and how it can operate.

“Cyber Command is to protect DoD networks,” Lapan said at an off-camera question session with journalists. “There are other agencies of the U.S. government that get involved in the commercial side. So there are certainly legal and other boundaries that would have to be considered.”

The Pentagon’s top spokesman, Geoff Morrell, said earlier this week that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates does not want to use the Pentagon’s online resources to go after WikiLeaks because the impact of the documents being published is not severe enough to warrant it.

The United States is trying to track where WikiLeaks is publishing from, Crowley said.

“What we are doing is, we are tracking where these documents are emerging from. Just to keep track of what is being released and, as we have been doing for some time, trying to assess impact. So we are monitoring where documents are emerging from,” Crowley told reporters Friday.

Assange’s lawyer in Britain speaks out on behalf of the Wikileaks founder in hiding in the UK.

December 2, 2010 |

JUAN GONZALEZ: As the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks continues to publish secret U.S. diplomatic cables, its founder Julian Assange has gone into hiding in order to avoid arrest. Earlier today, Sweden’s highest court refused permission for Assange to appeal the arrest order issued over charges of alleged rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Assange has denied the allegations and said he is the target of a smear campaign. Earlier this week, Interpol, the international law enforcement organization, issued a red notice alert for Assange’s arrest. He could now be detained on the sex charges in any of the 188 countries that are part of Interpol. Meanwhile, here in the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder has announced WikiLeaks is the target of a criminal probe, and some politicians have accused Assange of breaking the Espionage Act.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the legal problems facing Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, we’re going to London. We’re joined by his lawyer Jennifer Robinson. She is one of the few people who have been in contact with Julian this week.

Welcome to Democracy Now! Jennifer Robinson, where is Julian Assange right now?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: He is here in the U.K. I can confirm that much. But as to his exact whereabouts, I cannot confirm.

AMY GOODMAN: Do the authorities know where he is?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: The authorities certainly know how to contact him via his lawyers. And I must, I’m sorry, correct you, that he is not in hiding, evading any Interpol arrest warrant. He has genuine concerns for his personal safety as a result of numerous very public calls for his assassination. And he’s obviously incredibly busy with the WikiLeaks current works and the attacks on their systems. So, any suggestion that he is evading Interpol arrest warrants is incorrect.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, in terms of this Interpol warrant, what does it mean in terms of what would be the procedure if, let’s say, British authorities decided to—if they could find where he is and decided they wanted to execute this warrant?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, I think the first thing that we have to remember is that an Interpol red notice is not actually an arrest warrant. It is considered by states who are member states of Interpol as a valid provisional arrest notice, so the authorities can take action. Though what we do know, and has been reported today, is that if a European arrest warrant was issued, the authorities would be obliged to arrest my client. Reports today have suggested that a European arrest warrant was communicated to SOCA, the authorities here in the U.K., but that was returned on the grounds of an administrative error, and we’re seeking confirmation at the moment of what that problem was. In our view, the Interpol arrest warrant, there are serious issues with it, on the grounds of due process concerns arising in the Swedish proceedings, and also, indeed, for the need for it, given our client’s voluntary offers of cooperation that were rejected by the Swedish prosecuting authorities.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain, Jennifer Robinson, what that was? What were Julian Assange’s efforts to deal with the Swedish authorities?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, first, it’s important to note that Mr. Assange remained in Sweden for almost a month in order to clear his name. While he was in Sweden after the allegations came out, he was in touch with the prosecuting authorities and offered on numerous occasions to provide interview in order to clear his name. Those offers were not taken up by the police. Now, he obviously has had to travel for work and had meetings to attend. And in order to leave Sweden, he sought the specific permission of the prosecutor to leave, on the grounds that there was an outstanding investigation, and she gave that permission. So he left Sweden lawfully and without objection by the prosecuting authorities. Since that time, we have communicated through his Swedish counsel on numerous occasions offers to provide the answers to the questions that she may have through other means, through teleconference, through video link, by attending an embassy here in the U.K. to provide that information. And all of those offers were rejected. It’s also important to remember that the prosecutor has not once issued a formal summons for his interrogation. So, all of these communications have been informally. And in our view, it’s disproportionate to seek an arrest warrant when voluntary cooperation has been offered.

JUAN GONZALEZ: How unusual is this for an Interpol red alert notice to go out over what is essentially a local—not, I wouldn’t say a minor allegation, but certainly not something that would warrant an international manhunt of this kind?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Absolutely, I agree with you entirely. My instructions from Swedish counsel is that it’s highly irregular for allegations of this kind to give rise to a red notice. On the basis of our appeal to one of the lower courts, the rape charge was in fact struck out. And as we have always maintained, the facts certainly do not meet that charge. So, there are real questions about the proportionality of seeking an arrest warrant on the basis of the allegations that are made. And of course we have to remember that no formal charges have been issued.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about the growing number of threats against Julian Assange. The former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has said Assange should be, quote, “hunted down,” and a former campaign aide of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper went a step further in a recent interview on the Canadian Broadcasting, CBC.

TIM FLANAGAN: Well, I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something. You know, there’s no good coming of this.

AMY GOODMAN: That was University of Calgary professor Tim Flanagan, who served as the Conservative Party’s campaign manager in Canada’s general election in 2004 and 2006. Jennifer Robinson, as Julian Assange’s attorney, your response?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: These calls for his assassination are absolutely outrageous and, indeed, illegal. I think that the prosecuting authorities ought to consider prosecuting these individuals for incitement to violence. Obviously assassination is illegal, and we take these concerns very seriously. Now, the press around the fact that my client is in hiding to evade arrest is absolutely incorrect. And one can imagine that when you have very public officials making these sorts of serious calls for assassination, that one would be concerned for their personal safety. I also think that it raises genuine concerns when you have Sarah Palin making such allegations for the prospect of my client receiving any sort of due process in the U.S.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I wanted to ask you about the—potentially, obviously, a much more difficult situation is the criminal investigation that Attorney General Holder and U.S. officials say they are now looking into about the possibility of charging your client with violations of the U.S. Espionage Act. Your response to that?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Obviously, we will be taking advice from U.S. lawyers on the Espionage Act. I’m not a practicing U.S. lawyer. Though it is of grave concern and a matter that we are following closely. In our view, WikiLeaks ought to be entitled to the First Amendment protections for free speech. And any prosecution under the Espionage Act would call into question those protections.

AMY GOODMAN: Will Julian Assange be making any public statements anytime soon?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: I’m not sure that he will be making any public statements anytime soon. At present, he is busy on other matters.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, it’s interesting. He put out the Iraq war logs, the Afghanistan war logs, as well, if you will. Then you have the cable—these diplomatic cables. All of that he was—continued—able to travel freely. Now, even after the cables, it’s when he said, you know, “I’ll be now releasing the documents of one of the largest banks in America”—many are suspecting it’s Bank of America—does the full arrest warrant go out for him, or as you said, the red flag. Jennifer Robinson?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, I think that certainly it’s very interesting timing that the arrest warrant has come about. But there’s—in terms of the document release, I think it’s just very interesting timing that the arrest warrant has come at the time that it has, two days after the leak of the—the release of all these documents.

AMY GOODMAN: You talked about he is now busily at work on other matters. Are you talking about the continued release of documents? And how exactly is he doing it? And, oh, how many people is he working with?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: As his lawyer, I’m not privy to the internal operations of WikiLeaks, and we only provide advice on his—the external legal matters. As I understand it, the documents will continue to be released. And as has been reported in the press in the past few days, WikiLeaks is dealing with a number of attacks on its systems from a technical point of view, which are of great concern and put at threat the operations of WikiLeaks.

JUAN GONZALEZ: One other question. You’ve confirmed that he is in the U.K. Have you been contacted at all by British authorities about having contact with your client?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: We have not been—we have not been contacted by the police, though we have made clear that we are acting for Mr. Assange and that he can be contacted via us. But no contact has been made with us thus far.

AMY GOODMAN: And what does Julian Assange say, Jennifer Robinson, about these charges of rape and sexual molestation?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Obviously, he vehemently denies the allegations and is incredibly keen to clear his name, hence the reason for our voluntary offers of cooperation to the prosecutor over the past several weeks.

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, on the issue of being called a terrorist, you have national politicians like New York’s Congress member Peter King saying that WikiLeaks should be declared a terrorist organization. At the same time, federally in this country, if a person is declared a terrorist, an executive order—or if that’s not exactly the technical name—can be issued, for example, for Awlaki, where he can be assassinated. Are you concerned about this?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: Absolutely, and I think the suggestion that WikiLeaks is a terrorist organization is absolutely outrageous.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you very much for being with us, Jennifer Robinson. Can you say how Julian Assange is protecting himself right now?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: He is obviously concerned about personal safety and is maintaining a low profile in order to protect himself from those threats.

AMY GOODMAN: And you’re saying he’s not in hiding from authorities but from possible personal harm?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: He is absolutely not evading arrest. He is in—he’s not in hiding. His location is not disclosed out of concern for general personal safety issues. And the prosecuting authorities are able to contact him via his lawyers. There is no suggestion that he is evading arrest.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, the legality of the U.S. going after the WikiLeaks website, the pressure on Amazon to drop WikiLeaks?

JENNIFER ROBINSON: I think that’s more a matter of politics than the law.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you, Jennifer Robinson, for being with us, speaking to us from London. She is one of the attorneys for Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.

As governments across the world braced for the release of millions of documents by WikiLeaks, reports said that US diplomats had described Britain’s former prime minister Gordon Brown and his government as weak and unstable in secret briefings to US President Barack Obama .

According to the Daily Express Sunday, the imminent release of diplomatic files by the whistle blowing website WikiLeaks would prove “highly embarrassing” to Brown, quoting “sources” in Downing Street. Reports said that the three million documents include “no-holds-barred” private cables to the White House from many US embassies, and reportedly mention South African president Nelson Mandela, Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai and Libya’s Colonel Gaddafi.

Around three million secret US diplomatic messages obtained by WikiLeaks would expose the “no-holds-barred” private cables to the White House from scores of US embassies, the Daily Mail said. The files reportedly contain damaging assessments of Brown’s character and leadership skills and of the stability of the government he led, but a 10, Downing Street spokesman declined to discuss the nature of any confidentialcommunications. He said: “Obviously, the government has been briefed by US officials, by the US ambassador, as to the likely content of these leaks. I don’t want to speculate about precisely what is going to be leaked before it is leaked.” US ambassador Louis Susman has spoken to British officials about the likely contents of the files that date from 2008 until early this year.

The explosive files are also said to contain thoughts about both David Cameron and Nick Clegg while they were opposition leaders. Downing Street sources are quoted as saying: “We don’t think there will be much about the coalition government. There might be some slightly embarrassing things about David Cameron’s time in opposition but it will be nothing compared with what was said about Brown. The diplomatic cables were more about Labour. Brown was seen as paranoid and weak and unstable. These files are going to be embarrassing for him.” US State Department officials are concerned that the release of such sensitive files could damage relations with their allies, the media report said.

The British government is so worried that Friday night it issued a D-Notice, warning that publishing the secrets could compromise national security. Crowley said: “These revelations are harmful to the US and our interests. They are going to create tension in relationships between our diplomats and our friends around the world.”

Besides Britain and India, the US has warned the governments of Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Israel in advance of the release. It is likely that a backlash by countries upset over the leaks may lead to US diplomats being expelled.View Source Article

WikiLeaks has announced an important release on its Twitter account, claiming it’ll be seven times bigger than the Iraq war logs, which are widely considered to be the biggest military leak in history.

“Next release is 7x the size of the Iraq War Logs. intense pressure over it for months. Keep us strong” was the message posted to the Wikileaks Twitter account earlier today.

The message was followed by an even bolder statement two hours later: “The coming months will see a new world, where global history is redefined.”

WikiLeaks is an organization that publishes submissions of otherwise unavailable documents, keeping the sources anonymous. It has published nearly 500,000 secret U.S. documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No details about the upcoming release have been revealed, but the fact that it was mentioned in the same context as the Iraq war logs points to another military-related leak. What do you think Wikileaks will announce? Please, share your opinions in the comments.